The Republican brand is in the crapper and something needs to be done. Actually, several things need to be done. When we think about the Republican brand we think about a few clearly delineated themes: Strong national defense, lower taxes, less government spending, and traditional (conservative Christian) values.
The Republicans are struggling on all these fronts except taxation. In fact, one of their themes has been dropped right off the list: less government intrusion into state/local issues.
The Republican solution to their problems on a strong national defense is to talk tough and accuse their opponents of a lack of resolve. It is a remarkable resilient strategy, although it is slowly losing its effectiveness.
On traditional values, conservative Christians are beginning to wake up to the fact that they are being used by investment bankers and that leaders, like Ralph Reed, are no more than charlatans. Bush’s solution is to veto stem-cell research. This is strictly a rear-guard action.
On government spending, the GOP record is atrocious. But there is a simple way to fix that between now and 2008. And Bob Novak has the details.
Bush plans to veto the homeland security appropriations bill nearing final passage, followed by vetoes of eight more money bills sent him by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
That constitutes a veto onslaught of historic proportions from a president who did not reject a single bill during his first term. Of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal 2008, only three will be signed by the president in the form shaped by the House. What’s more, Bush correctly claimed that he has the House votes needed to sustain these vetoes.
Government shutdown, anyone?
Bush next plans vetoes of the energy-water and interior-environment bills. The remaining vetoes would be on labor, health and human services, and education; transportation and housing and urban development; commerce, justice and science; agriculture and rural development; state and foreign operations (partly because the House bill omits the so-called Mexico City antiabortion language) and defense.
The House Republicans are along for the ride:
[Rep. Jeb] Hensarling [R-TX] collected signatures last week of 147 House Republicans, one more than needed, pledging to sustain money-bill vetoes, and the number is growing.
The Republicans are going to stop the budget process in its tracks and say it is all about controlling runaway spending by thriftless liberals.
It’s hard to say whether this strategy will be effective. The Republicans start out with little credibility on the issue. Their only asset is the residual effect of their branding. Republicans are supposed to be against huge budgets. So, they will be behaving as expected according to their brand. This will help restore their brand.
Yet, as Novak notes, this ‘will trigger an epochal political struggle in the months ahead’. Neither the Congress nor the President has much popularity and good-will from the American people. Budgetary gridlock will prevent anyone from taking credit for any positive accomplishments. Who wins the argument, if anyone, depends on many fine details that are difficult to game out in advance. The Republicans are banking on one thing happening for certain. They will, again, be thought of as the party of less government spending. They need to restore this aspect of their brand to rebuild their coalition.
A colossal clash over the budget should allow them to do that. On the other hand, this doesn’t automatically restore their reputation for ‘fiscal responsibility’ because they are not calling for a saner tax policy that would reduce the budget deficit (rather than merely slow it’s growth).
The Democrats job will be to highlight the one-sided approach of the Republicans (smaller budgets but not higher taxes on the wealthy) and their hypocrisy (spending for GOP patrons is okay, but not for Democratic patrons).
